On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Martti Kühne <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:52:39PM -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: >> >> But that would simply add "arm" or "ppc" to the ARCH array. The point >> is to know beforehand if the package works - currently I can know if a >> package works or not in my arch (amd64) by looking at the PKGBUILD. >> That's the whole point of that array. >> > > Ultimately it sounds like a good idea to set up a modified AUR for each of > initially mirrors and modifies the arch of the current, later incoming > packages > to aur and then let them be adopted by the people who use the arches. Then, > after the situation has fully surfaced, the "beforehand"-clause would be > satisfied. Only few modificaitons are actually needed, like a field "untested" > or something to indicate a package hasn't been acted upon or verified since > the > automatic conversion. If a user finds a verified, he might be able to unverify > a package or be requested to use the comments section. > > In a generalized approach this could solve even more of the current issues > mentioned with aur, if it would incrementalize by version, per-arch-diffs and > per-taco-diffs... making pkgbuilds patchwork. :)
Is there an official consensus about this question? I was asked to include 'arm' to the architecture array in fish-shell-git. I have no problems with that, but want to conform to the general recommendations.
